Can Images Obtained With High Field Strength Magnetic Resonance Imaging Reduce Contouring Variability of the Prostate?

Purpose The objective of this study is to determine whether there is less contouring variability of the prostate using higher-strength magnetic resonance images (MRI) compared with standard MRI and computed tomography (CT). Methods and Materials Forty patients treated with prostate brachytherapy wer...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics biology, physics, 2011-07, Vol.80 (3), p.728-734
Hauptverfasser: Usmani, Nawaid, M.D, Sloboda, Ron, Ph.D, Kamal, Wafa, Ghosh, Sunita, Ph.D, Pervez, Nadeem, M.B.B.S, Pedersen, John, M.D, Yee, Don, M.D, Danielson, Brita, M.D, Murtha, Albert, M.D, Amanie, John, M.D, Monajemi, Tara, Ph.D
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Purpose The objective of this study is to determine whether there is less contouring variability of the prostate using higher-strength magnetic resonance images (MRI) compared with standard MRI and computed tomography (CT). Methods and Materials Forty patients treated with prostate brachytherapy were accrued to a prospective study that included the acquisition of 1.5-T MR and CT images at specified time points. A subset of 10 patients had additional 3.0-T MR images acquired at the same time as their 1.5-T MR scans. Images from each of these patients were contoured by 5 radiation oncologists, with a random subset of patients repeated to quantify intraobserver contouring variability. To minimize bias in contouring the prostate, the image sets were placed in folders in a random order with all identifiers removed from the images. Results Although there was less interobserver contouring variability in the overall prostate volumes in 1.5-T MRI compared with 3.0-T MRI ( p < 0.01), there was no significant differences in contouring variability in the different regions of the prostate between 1.5-T MRI and 3.0-T MRI. MRI demonstrated significantly less interobserver contouring variability in both 1.5-T and 3.0-T compared with CT in overall prostate volumes ( p < 0.01, p = 0.01), with the greatest benefits being appreciated in the base of the prostate. Overall, there was less intraobserver contouring variability than interobserver contouring variability for all of the measurements analyzed. Conclusions Use of 3.0-T MRI does not demonstrate a significant improvement in contouring variability compared with 1.5-T MRI, although both magnetic strengths demonstrated less contouring variability compared with CT.
ISSN:0360-3016
1879-355X
DOI:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.03.019